Community? (flame lightly)

[Chanak]

Interesting topic, Than. Btw, good to see you.

I have observed, as well, a general erosion of the sense of community that once seemed to permeate GB in the past; in particular, SYM. I refer to SYM specifically because the mechanics of this forum and purpose of being in many ways mirrors a communal gathering of sorts one might find at a park, party, reunion, conference, etc. At such gatherings, one would find circles of individuals engaged in discussions or activities of infinite variety; in one larger circle, people might be laughing at the raucous jokes of a manic prankster; in another, less numerous group, a more subdued, intellectual sort of discussion might be going on. To me, the threads represent such social circles, and the involvement of a poster in a thread symbolizes how one might approach such a social circle and become a part of the dynamic.

In all cases - on SYM, or at a reunion - the conduct of a group is dictated by the consensus of the majority, be it spoken or unspoken. Behavior which deviates from what is viewed as acceptable by the group is frowned upon, and continued activity in such a fashion ultimately results in the rejection of the individual(s) in question from the circle.

The causes for this erosion I have seen on SYM are manifold, but share a common root. I feel DW hit the nail on the head in regards to internet anonymity...and how this may encourage callous disregard for others in those who already may be predisposed to such behaviors, but repress them otherwise. The facelessness of the internet may urge such individuals on to experience the thrill of psychotic freedom and the removal of inhibitions, which can easily become addictive and also insiduously subtle in onset. I see this as the chief catalyst behind the erosion of the community both myself and others once felt on SYM. It is healthy for us as human beings, I think, to let go of our inhibitions once in a while. However, some of these inhibitions also serve a purpose in a social sense, enabling us to establish relationships with others and maintain lasting friendships. Case in point, callous people do not endear themselves to others. The narcissistic outlook which seems to reinforce arguments to the contrary only encapsulates what is so very wrong with SYM these days, and why many older members have either permanently left, or rarely visit the board.

I think Ned makes an important point too - new meat. As in, the volume of newly registered members has increased, resulting in a greater variety of posters visiting SYM. Considering the rather depressing frequency of callousness that goes on across the internet in the various chatrooms and message boards, it's not surprising that we see more of that seeping into SYM. Some posters feel no compunction in publishling their views, since they are, after all, faceless. Others seem to have an agenda they pursue doggedly, sliding around the forum rules in clever ways that inflict maximum damage, again encouraged by the safety buffer of distance, and the anonymity of the internet. In "real life" they don't behave this way at all towards people they aren't very familiar with, because the consequences of their behaviors would surely result in rather unpleasant confrontations with their victims.

However, the presence of new membership alone does not explain this erosion, for there was a time when such unpleasantness was dealt with, and removed promptly (we all remember AR). I more refer to the latter sort of poster I describe above as being a crucial cause of the breakdown. SYM has weathered it's share of storms; their approach is obvious, and rememdy immediate. Sinkholes, however, lurk beneath the surface...and it usually takes many years until their presence is known...and by then it usually too late to do anything about it.

EDIT: I would be remiss, Than, if I did not add my agreement towards your example of the Dark Flames as being a bona-fide community in the truest sense of the word. Though naturally personality conflicts arose in the course of events amongst our membership, these things were dealt with and worked on in order to achieve the harmony which a community of human beings strive for. Compromise is naturally a part of this process, for we all have to give something to the group in order to make it work, and work it has. Again, narcissism by it's nature is the very antithesis of the cohesiveness which binds a group of people together, for it involves no compromise, no caring beyond the concerns of self.

[Robnark]

damn, Chan. that's one spectacularly depressing post you've got there...

but regarding the topic. a lot of this comes down to semantics and how one would define a community. okay, a group of people with common interests would fit, especially in the gaming forums (fora? meh), but SYM is a little trickier. if you take the most prolific posters or those who have been here longest, maybe it is a bit more of a community, with people who actually know each other a bit. not just avatars.

recently, an appreciable amount of topical discussion threads seem to concern topics that, while open to comment from anyone, tend to bring out strong feelings in pretty much everyone, longtime members included. now, this may help accessible serious discussion, but it hardly fosters the creation of a close-knit community.

oh, and I do not really feel that there is some sort of outbreak of ill-defined coarsening of the board to be explained by the net anonimity buzzwords being bandied around. if anonimity is playing a role, all it is doing is making people more sensitive to comments by people they don't know much about. dammit, the stuff regular posters can say because we know they don't mean it. when you first post, everyone on the board is more or less anonymous, so it's not always easy to judge how others will take your comments, especially if you aren't regularly involved in online discussion.

there have been some members who probably say what they say because they can - they are anonymous and unaccountable - but a lot of comments could also be because the audience is unknown to the new member. it works both ways.


anyhoo, if you want a sense of community, make one. we've all been here long enough, so maybe we should all take a little responsibility in whatever this place is like right now.

well, that's my limit on coherent thought for 3am. g'night.

[Lost One]

Well, I'm going to give my personal opinion of why the community here (SYM) has "eroded". Take it with a pinch of salt, if you will.

I'm not much of a big poster, but when I joined in 2002, I realized that people were a lot friendlier to generally, everybody. This was mostly because most of the posters were still rather new to the forum, weren't so close-knit in a social circle, and thus were willing to make new friendships.

Coming back after 2 years of not posting, I start speaking my mind (just like I did 2 yrs ago, taking care to censor myself) and start seeing my posts being picked apart by moderators and veterans alike. 'Picked apart', in the sense that any miniscule thing, be it an opinion not agreed upon, a slightly spam post on my part or just a small error in information or misinterpretation of my body language (through emoticons) will result in a pouncing.

I just did a quick scanning through other threads to see if I'm right about this, and I've noticed that the lightweight posters (those with less than 500 posts, say) are subject to a lot of veteran hostility, sarcasm, irony, scrutiny or simply too much criticism, which is a hell load to support when you're trying to integrate yourself into a new community.

What a veteran can say here that is likely to be forgiven or viewed in a positive light, a lightweight poster has to tread on the tip of his toes so as to not to 'offend' the veterans or alert the moderators. Now, this is what I call favouritism or elitist behaviour for a public forum. You have the big posters in their social ring keeping the young posters away at an arm's length...showing cold politeness, but not friendliness. Take a look at the thread starters, and they are generally veterans. Take a look at those who command the flow of discussion in the threads, and it is the same faces once again. When young faces pop in to say something, if there is anything perceived as wrong in their posts (language, content, validity, relevance) it will be picked apart remorselessly. I can provide many examples from other threads if you wish.

Thus, the reason why I think this community has grown stagnant, to put it crudely, is because there is an elitist group of big posters who keep the young ones at bay.

[Ekental]

Originally Posted by thantor3

GB in its current form seems less of a place to hang out and exchange ideas and more of a forum where people have no compulsion about publicly expressing their opinions, no matter how toxic, despite the negative impact it might have on other members. In my mind, this argues against GB being a community of interest because in a true community, members moderate their behavior in order to achieve group goals, such as greater intimacy or a shared sense of purpose... Behavior is moderated by choice and the members have demonstrated a desire to address the issues that arise in maintaining a community, even to the point of offering RL support, processing, and problem-solving.

My question is this: is GB a community of interest or is it simply a pack of small (apparently warring) factions that give the appearance of a community? Put another way, is GB an authentic gathering of individuals who are willing to work at being part of a community experience or is it merely a pseudo-community, a hunting preserve dedicated to the care and feeding of the individual ego?

Hmm... this definition of community sounds like a communism to me, though thats not a bad thing at all. Communism is a great system (if only everyone were such good samaritans).
Has the problem that if people moderate their ideas toward the "greater good" of the "online community", then will ideas and free posting be stifled? Will people regulate their own ideas and not post potentially exciting and intriguing thoughts because they don't want to hurt other users or damage the "spirit" of the community?
This seems to be one of those "are we willing to give up our individual freedoms for the greater good of the people?" questions.
Personally I'm moderate, I believe that freedom of "posting" could be limited a little to cultivate the "community", though I hesitate to ask how much the limitations would possibly be, as this brings up all sorts of problems that could eventually lead to the collapse of the said "community" (governmental type control in the forms of fascism, etc.)
As for social circles and pouncing, thats bad but people should try to make their posts as inoffensive as possible while still conveying their message right? I mean, what's the cost of doing that?

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by Ekental

Hmm... this definition of community sounds like a communism to me, though thats not a bad thing at all. Communism is a great system (if only everyone were such good samaritans).
Has the problem that if people moderate their ideas toward the "greater good" of the "online community", then will ideas and free posting be stifled? Will people regulate their own ideas and not post potentially exciting and intriguing thoughts because they don't want to hurt other users or damage the "spirit" of the community?
This seems to be one of those "are we willing to give up our individual freedoms for the greater good of the people?" questions.
Personally I'm moderate, I believe that freedom of "posting" could be limited a little to cultivate the "community", though I hesitate to ask how much the limitations would possibly be, as this brings up all sorts of problems that could eventually lead to the collapse of the said "community" (governmental type control in the forms of fascism, etc.)

I think you may looking too deep into this, trying to tie it into a political theory, especially one as complex as communism

As for pouncing, as brought up by Lost Soul, he's very much right. There is a lot of criticism that is brought down by the more established posters on newer people, and that can very much be intimidating, and annoying in some cases. It also leads into the idea of the clique mentality. He also touches on something I brought up some time ago, in the 'Is SYM dying' thread (too lazy to link, will do so if asked, though ), in that there is very much an elitest attitude here. As I recall, I was shot down horribly on the idea, though. Anyway...

touching on the subject of testing the waters. Now, it's good common sense, socially and otherwise, to go into something with your head up, and wits about you. With that in mind, it's generally a bad idea to try an establish a presence, anywhere, by starting off with something incredably edgey and iffy in the long run. It's better to test the waters, and ease in slowly (as almost everyone who isn't a first gen SYM'er has done). Racy, strong political sidings and comments, and attempted, good humoured flames are generally not a good idea until people have a good understanding of you. Some people do these things, while some do not. Those who don't (until established and known) tend to last longer around here. The others tend to go away because of the backlash, of which I think most vet's of the boards are guilty of doing. This, again, leads back to an elitest mentality.

I think we used to be a good, tight knit community, but over the years, many people have drifted into specific groups, in which tend to associate only with others in the group, and loosely outside of it. It's too a point where in certain discussions, some people won't even have their posts acknowledged, because the primary members of the discussion are not part of your group, or you are not part of their's (or any, in some cases). This is often regardless of the validity of the comment made. We've established some pretty open biases and expectations of people, and as open as we all claim, I don't think many of us are friendly and open as we were two or three years ago.

[C Elegans]

I hope I'm not straying away too far from the issue here, but I do agree with Aegis statement above that this is not so much a question of the presence or absence of a community as the illusion of a community. I've been a member of GB for 3.5 years now, and over this time I have seen many changes and consequent complaints about those changes. Worries that SYM is dying, complaints about SYM "not being what it once was" and nostalgia about "the good old days" are, at SYM as in human life in general, a common response to spontaneous change.

Contrary to several other posters in this thread, but in agreement with Robnark I don't think "net anonymity" plays a role in what people percieve as negative change here at SYM. On the contrary, it is logical to assume that people were more anonymous to each other in the early days of SYM than now. Like I posted in DW's net anonymity thread, there is always a sender and a receiver of communication, and some people might show blunted sensitivity, others increased, and some the same as in RL both as senders and receivers. The netto effect of this is IMO that the "sensitivity" at group level is the same as in RL. Instead, I think the core features of the perceived deterioration of SYM lies in discrepancy between expectation and outcome, and changes that are perceived as loss.

Originally Posted by Aegis

It also leads into the idea of the clique mentality. He also touches on something I brought up some time ago, in the 'Is SYM dying' thread (too lazy to link, will do so if asked, though ), in that there is very much an elitest attitude here.

I searched for your post, but I couldn't find it, so I'd be thankful if you could link to it since I would find it interesting to read. I agree with you that a clique-mentality has formed at SYM, which is why I posted about subgroups and in- versus out-group behaviours above. When a group of people grow large enough (usually around 30+ people or so), subgroups tend to form spontanously, and as soon as you have more than one group, in- and out-group behavious will set in. A very common human in-group behaviour is to apply different sets of values towards ingroup members than towards outgroup members - and voila there you have created a "we and them"-behaviour. This inevitable creates a barrier between old and new users, that makes it more difficult for new users to find acceptance. In-group behaviours tend to marginalise others, newcomers as well as people with ideas that are not shared by the in-group. So if we want a forum which encourages new users to become regular posters and actively express themselves, in-group behaviours are not helpful.

Originally Posted by Chanak

In all cases - on SYM, or at a reunion - the conduct of a group is dictated by the consensus of the majority, be it spoken or unspoken. Behavior which deviates from what is viewed as acceptable by the group is frowned upon, and continued activity in such a fashion ultimately results in the rejection of the individual(s) in question from the circle.

Exactly, and this is why I am very much against the idea that an open forum such as SYM should have any other rules than those stated in the Forum rules. Implicit, unspoken rules of how one should behave to be accepted, only provide a barrier for new users who are not familiar with those rules, and they also marginalise everybody who does not behave according to the majority (or the norm-setting groups) values. In RL, this is called conformism and whereas conformism in both necessary and desired for instance in the traffic, I personally find it highly undesirable at an open internet forum entitled "Speak Your Mind". I may experince some discomfort when I see various people here post that they think evolution never happened, that poor people in the development countries have themselves to blame or that the slaughtering of civilians in poor countries were noble and heroic acts committed by various Western countries that only aimed to help out, but gee - if I didn't tolerate that kind of comments and opinions, I would quit posting here. Nobody is forcing me to read those posts, even less reply to them. Variability, not homogenity, is one of the key attractions with SYM in my opinion - if I only want to discuss with people who share my views and I expect everybody to uncritically accept my opinions and values, then I should look out for a fan-club for myself rather than SYM.

Originally Posted by Lost One

I just did a quick scanning through other threads to see if I'm right about this, and I've noticed that the lightweight posters (those with less than 500 posts, say) are subject to a lot of veteran hostility, sarcasm, irony, scrutiny or simply too much criticism, which is a hell load to support when you're trying to integrate yourself into a new community.

What a veteran can say here that is likely to be forgiven or viewed in a positive light, a lightweight poster has to tread on the tip of his toes so as to not to 'offend' the veterans or alert the moderators. Now, this is what I call favouritism or elitist behaviour for a public forum.
<snip>
Thus, the reason why I think this community has grown stagnant, to put it crudely, is because there is an elitist group of big posters who keep the young ones at bay.

I totally agree with Lost One about the board being much more positively interpreted as an old user than as a new. This is also one reason why I against the idea of implicit rules and creating a community out of SYM, since I think this would add even more difficulties to incorporation of new members - the new members that are necessary if we want keep this forum alive and developing rather than increasingly stale.

However, I previously asked Thantor this question but he made it clear that he did not refer to change, so instead I ask it to you who have posted who do refer explicitely to a change: (DW, Chanak, Lost One, Aegis): Could you in greater detail describe what you refer to when you talk about "callous disregard" or "critisism...that can very much be intimidating" or "posts being picked apart by moderators and veterans alike"? I would also be thankful if anyone could post examples, because I really don't get it. Lost One gives a description that I can understand, but the other comments I can't relate to. Now, I haven't posted much the last few months except for quite recently, but I certainly don't think the general atmosphere in discussions have become more aggressive or hostile or "callous". The things people could say to each other in the old politics, religion and morality threads are IMO far more hostile than anything posted here in recent time that I have read. Chanak even suggests that "there was a time when such unpleasantness was dealt with, and removed promptly".

This is an example of an old discussion between two users:

How dare you make such a sweeping (and condescending) generalization about the motivations of the other 190 nations on the planet. Don?t presume to speak for the US either. I, for one, am embarrassed to share this country with someone willing to voice such ugly xenophobic comments and wallow in such holier-than-thou ignorance.

Theatrical and meaningless insults aside, what exactly are you disputing in my statement?

You know, I believe you sincerely don?t understand what I find so offensive. To me, it just further underscores your pathology. I?m all for debate, but not with the willfully ignorant.

These statements were not removed, and did not lead to neither warnings from Mods or banning of any of the members. I could post numours such examples from old debates. Right after the 9/11 WTC attack, it was a lot of emotions flying around here. Right after the US invasion of Iraq there were many political discussion. But when I look back at the last months, I see fewer hot debates than for instance 1 year ago...so I really don't understand what exactly the sense of increased hostility or unpleasant behaviours referrs to.

[Xandax]

When I think back to some of the religious debates that have always been on GB/SYM, ranging years back - I don't think the discussions has gotten worse or deteriorated per se.
I just think it is because more topics hit "closer to home".

Many of us aren't terrible religious here at SYM (based on what I can see in discussions, could be wrong though ).
So we (us non-religious) have a large emotional/personal distance to topics regarding it. And thus this large group might not be provoked as much by statements or attitudes, opinions and so on. Consequently - many will only feel slightly disturbed if the language got a little harsh in such discussions or opinions became “strong”. It is hard to insult somebody in a topic they don’t really care about, personally/emotionally.
However, to the people that are religious, they likely would feel more “offended” because it is a topic they are emotionally involved in…..

Lately (especially after 9/11), however we have seen a move towards more political discussions.

Unlike religion, many of us have opinions of for instance US foreign politics or terrorist attacks. Many feel the direct consequence of actions taken in regards of these topics, and many are also emotionally involved.
Thus discussions about these topics will affect a larger group of people, and therefore more will now perceive the harsh language and strong opinions.

I think the “deterioration” of SYM is not only relative, but also personal perspective, in light of the topics that are discussed.

[VonDondu]

Originally Posted by C Elegans

This is an example of an old discussion between two users:
<snip>

I'm just curious: did you recently look up those examples, or do you keep them "on file"?

[Kayless]

I’m not going to respond with anything academic or debate the meaning of the word community etc. I'm just going to say honestly how I feel. Yes, to me the forum no longer feels like the community it used to. Most of the people I was most comfortable chatting and B.S.-ing with are gone, the atmosphere is not much to my liking and I no longer feel as comfortable here as I used to. I'm not really sure why I've stuck around (since I mostly just lurk these days). Force of habit I guess.

[CM]

I wont say much on ther issue, as i consider myself and have always considered myself an outsider on SYM. Doesnt matter to me really. Personal choice.

Anyway i think the change in SYM has basically been too much intelligence and not enough stupidity. Ie too much discussion not enough spam. SYM was meant for fun and relaxing and just spamming. Now it is for intellectual discussions and the spamming is on the brink.

Me and Luis have to do something about that seriously.

Kayless an off topic question you think that the DC forum more resembles SYM that used to be?

[Lost One]

Now, I haven't posted much the last few months except for quite recently, but I certainly don't think the general atmosphere in discussions have become more aggressive or hostile or "callous".

I agree. My points were that there is more hostility and criticism towards newer members than there used to be, at least from, say, 2 years ago & going back. It surprised me after coming back to SYM to see the same faces commanding the threads and discussions...this is not a bad thing per se, but it suggests the newer members are having a hard time integrating, and from what I've read generally, they are on the receiving end of too much criticism from the veterans which is the "backlash" Aegis mentioned. I really don't like to cite examples, but take the thread 'The Great Man' for example (currently at the first page). Firstly, Armycardinal then Gauda gets bashed by the vets for having their own opinions. Sure, there was good reason behind the criticisms towards these two young posters, but I question the way in which the criticism was carried forth...in the sense that it gave me a feeling their opinions, wrong or not, were not being appreciated...and thus, they were being disencouraged to speak more. I mean, everyone who comes to speak here is obviously trying to be a part of the thread discussion, if not the community, so when their posts start getting analysed/criticised left and right by veterans without consideration to the contribution they are trying to make...then, yes, I think there is a problem there. Though, like I've said before, you have to take my comments with a pinch of salt, since they are just my personal opinions.

Going back to the deterioration of the community specifically...not sure if these have been mentioned yet, but reading the 'Is SYM dying?' thread made me think about how everything has become more serious, and like has been mentioned already, how the lack of something (like BG2) to unite us means there is a lack of common interest. However, if you think about it, there is a common interest, and that is we all want to speak and be heard. I think that's a start. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_5_131.gif

[Xandax]

Re-reading "The Great Man" I have to disagree with you @Lost One.
The people you mention aren't being "bashed by the vets for having their own opinions"

Most of what goes on is getting the "facts" behind posts taken to pieces, it isn't the opionions that are adressed, but the "facts".
It might seem like a fine line to some (especially the ones that experience it), but it is the essential part of discussing, especially in real life, where you are less likely to be able to "dodge" direct questions as you are on a media where you choose to answer or not, to ignore posts or not.

But maybe there is a sort of "home-field advantage" to thoes that have debated here at SYM for a longer time.
Unlike many other places I've visted on the web, debating here is done much based on facts and/or personal experiences, and less on insults and flames or even "I remember having read...."-statements.
This have possible done that some "oldies" are more carefull/experienced with posting what they can back up, then newcommers that aren't used to such debates, and thus are more likely to post semi-factual stuff. And this might again look like that newcommers are "bashed" more. Now - I have no real way of knowing this, because I don't experience it much (most seems to overlook my posting ) - but based on what you (and others?) say/feel it could be a possible answer to it.

And, by the way, if people feel they are being bashed, there are actions to take (PM Moderators (or Buck if it is a moderator) or the person they feel is bashing them). We have had many "oldies" banned in the time of SYM because they stepped over the line. There is little to no favoratisme from Buck on the matter, and I know I for one try to avoid that also.


@CM: you are no outsider - you are more insider then even me
You just have the "(dis)advantage" of being on the other side of many issues due to religious background, compared to many of the rest of us. I doubt you would be considered an outsider simply for that.

[CM]

Originally Posted by Xandax

@CM: you are no outsider - you are more insider then even me
You just have the "(dis)advantage" of being on the other side of many issues due to religious background, compared to many of the rest of us. I doubt you would be considered an outsider simply for that.

Off topic but that is BS. I am an outsider dont you start messing with my idea of my identity

[Luis Antonio]

Originally Posted by CM

Off topic but that is BS. I am an outsider dont you start messing with my idea of my identity

Yeah, dont mess with him, he may get nervous...

We are commun, but I think SYM is scattered between a few groups, who close the doors to newbies. Like me.

[CM]

Hey i met with you open arms and well only open arms if you want that type of attention go to BS

But i doubt people in general didnt rebuff you for being a newbie. Atleast i dont think. I have noticed alot of people are also very busy in real life and spend little time on SYM and many have out grown it. I guess like everything SYM has out lived its usefulness.